Jack and the Torso Killer

[SirRobertAnderson]

A.P. said something on the Casebook I found striking.....

If I remember correctly A.P. doesn't believe MJK to have been a Ripper victim but one way or the other I find what he has to say interesting (as always....)

I see the crime scene as a finished "work of art", a statement for the ages. A.P. sees it more as a interrupted case of "takeout".

What say ye, folks ?

Quite right, Michael, apart from the fact that I see the killer of MJK as a torso killer right from the start.

Instead of design or symbolism I see an 'interrupted motive' at work in this case, in that the killer was merely interrupted in the dissection of a human body which he or she fully intended to dispose of once he or she had completed his or her task. For we must remember that we have a very famous female torso killer from this period of the LVP.

I would imagine that it was the onset of daylight that brought a halt to the macabre proceedings. For whoever was at work in Miller's Court that night was working against the clock; and to get a body into portions where it might be carted of without notice is a truly massive task for a single person.

I would also imagine that if me and you were to stroll into the local mortuary and find a corpse abandoned in the midst of post mortem examination, then we would be able to conjur up all manner of design and symbolism in the work of the good doctors.

[Howard Brown]

Bob:

I see it as the manifestation of a performance piece by the killer.

I believe that he sat and perused it for some time before leaving.

But as usual...A.P. makes some good and interesting points with his perceptions.

[jmenges]

Hi all,

This sounds to me to be an element of AP's abortionist musings, ie botched abortion and then disposal of the body, in cinq with his floatations about the motive of the Torso killer.

Glad to have Autumn here and to finally be back...

JM

[SirRobertAnderson]

Bob:

I see it as the manifestation of a performance piece by the killer.


Couldn't agree more, How.

[Chris G.]

Originally Posted by apwolf

"I see the killer of MJK as a torso killer right from the start."

Excuse me, AP and Sir Bob, but how then do you explain that none of Kelly's limbs were cut off?

It's a bit like the theme in the Maybrick Diary where the writer keeps saying he is going to remove the head but never does!

A torso killer cuts off limbs.

The killer of MJK never did it so it rather defeats your argument, AP.

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

Originally Posted by apwolf

"I see the killer of MJK as a torso killer right from the start."

Excuse me, AP and Sir Bob, but how then do you explain that none of Kelly's limbs were cut off?

s

I was just reposting a comment from A.P., Chris. I don't agree with him but find the comment food for thought. Jack clearly had the time to disarticulate Kelly to his heart's content.

[Chris G.]

I was just reposting a comment from A.P., Chris. I don't agree with him but find the comment food for thought. Jack clearly had the time to disarticulate Kelly to his heart's content.

Exactly. Glad you agree.

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

One more from A.P. .....a really fine post.



Anyways to the difficult question in hand.
I guess I've always viewed the removal of organs, and much of the associated mutilation, as an 'act of war' against a perceived enemy.
That might be a difficult concept to wrestle with, so I'll try and explain.
Some considerable time ago I posted a case here from the Vietnam war where an American soldier on patrol through a village murdered a completely innocent young woman - I can't now remember whether he shot or stabbed her - but he then slit her open and removed many of the internal organs.
She was not the enemy, but the soldier perceived her to be because of his conditioning in an arena of war. If you had put the same soldier down in his home town and asked him to do the same to a local girl he would have thought you quite mad.

The thinking behind the horrendous act is sort of magical, and simply put is that everyone not in your uniform is the 'enemy'. This is of course applicated along with the 'I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget' philosophy that is commonly used when two tribes go to war.
The ancient Egyptians even had a good grasp of this concept, in that after a major battle, even when the battle remained undecided, the Egyptian foot soldiers went amongst the enemy dead and sliced their breeding tackle off, which was then duly presented to the King of Egypt upon their return.
There is a mural at Edfu temple showing Tuthmosis III seated on his throne whilst his foot soldiers pile up winkles and cockles in front of him.
But imagine yourself as one of the enemy troop that has been called up to reinforce your attack against the Egyptian might, and on the way you must stumble across the previous battlefield where thousands of your own troops lay dead and mutilated with their manhood sliced away.
If you didn't know fear before, you do now.

It is the perception that I talk of here, in that the killer probably did not view a woman as the 'enemy' until she encroached into his very personal space, by talking to him, propositioning him or even attempting to touch him... but once she did that she was very much the 'enemy' and would have been treated in exactly the same manner as the poor innocent woman that the American soldier killed and mutilated.
And the killer would have been imparting a 'lesson' to all those who might come later.

I'm not churlish when it comes to the concept of the killer actually consuming body parts, for Richard Chase sought some kind of magical cure for his imagined ills in just such a fashion; and I rate him as the closest match to the Whitechapel Murderer that we have.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thank you, Sir Robert.
As I said I view the circumstances of MJK's murder and mutilation as being the result of an interrupted motive, in that we view a very much unfinished scene in Miller's Court, rather than a completion of motive.
I'm aware that some struggle with this concept, as they like to view what took place in the court that night as something final.
But I'm always looking for the sharper side.

Your comments much appreciated.

[Howard Brown]

I don't know if any of you folks remember Eduardo Zinna's story or theory or propostition....that perhaps a veteran of the Zulu Wars affected by the use of the assigi ( little spears used by the Zulus ) in combat....may have reenacted his own version of the Zulu Wars on the prostitutes in the East End. Its on Casebook.

A.P.....as ever, a very provocative post,sor. Thanks.....

[A.P. Wolf]

No worries, How,
I suppose it is difficult for us to comprehend the awesome task of actually killing someone and then disposing of their body in a manner which will not draw attention to ourselves.
The killing, perhaps done in a fit of temper, is over, but the disposal must begin. Where to make that first cut?
One supposes that the killer first thought to rid the corpse of identity by making the facial features unrecognisable.
That must have been the first step once the victim was dead. Remove the identity... but as he worked at that, did he get the bizarre idea that by removing many external and internal features and organs that he could actually disguise the gender of the corpse?
So that when the bits and pieces were found floating in the Thames the police surgeons would not know whether they had a male or female corpse on their hands?
Childish huh?
It was obviously the first time that this killer had attempted to split a corpse, for everything is disjointed - excuse the play on words - as if a child is attempting to pull apart a doll; but he had a few things right, the dissection on the bed so that he could roll the whole mess up and throw it in a seaman's bag and then onto a barrow... and off to market along with the other costermonger's who were setting up their ponies at six in the morning outside of Miller's Court.
With his failure to complete the disposal was he counting on the facial disfigurement to disguise the true identity of his victim?
If so, then it wasn't Mary Kelly.

[Chris G.]

I don't know if any of you folks remember Eduardo Zinna's story or theory or propostition....that perhaps a veteran of the Zulu Wars affected by the use of the assigi ( little spears used by the Zulus ) in combat....may have reenacted his own version of the Zulu Wars on the prostitutes in the East End. Its on Casebook.

A.P.....as ever, a very provocative post,sor. Thanks.....

Hi Howard

Yes there are the mutilations carried out by the Zulus but also the mutilations of U.S. soldiers at Little Big Horn carried out by Sioux and other warriors in 1876, which also was only 12 years before the Whitechapel murders. So there were a number of cultures where mutilation was considered normal even though it seems appalling on the "civilized" streets of London.

As we know, the police did question some of the performers in a touring Wild West show to see if they had anything to do with the murders.

Chris

[jmenges]

As we know, the police did question some of the performers in a touring Wild West show to see if they had anything to do with the murders.

Chris

It may be a point of interest that a number of the Sioux that travelled to England with the Wild West Show in the early summer of 1887 chose to stay and reside in the country, especially in the London, Manchester and Salford areas, where their descendants still reside. Street names like Dakota, Cody, Kansas etc. can be found in Salford.

Here is a picture of the Wild West Show entertainers on the voyage from New York to London in 1887.

(I believe that may be Cody with the large gold chain and astrakhan collar and cuffs)

http://img104.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/08/28/2094s-47n2pee95.jpg

There is a newish coffee-table sized book (I can't recall the title) on the Wild West Show that has another, better photograph of the troupe on the grounds of the Earl Court complex. This photograph even shows policemen and other official-looking types posing with the large company of Wild West entertainers. If I come across that image online, I'll put it up.

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, I remember a case I found from 1888 involving one of these characters from the Wild West Show, a giant of a man who ran amok in an East End pub and it took about twenty policemen to subdue him... must see if I can't find it again.